Alexander Cockburn Has a Posse

Or at least he thinks we should all have one. Some interesting observations re: V-Tech massacre from the independent-minded lefty:

Five years ago Peter Odighizuwa a 43 years old Nigerian student killed three faculty members at Appalachian Law School Dean with a semi-automatic handgun, but before he could wreak further carnage two students fetched weapons from their cars, challenged the murderer with guns levelled ,and disarmed him.

When the mass murder session began in the engineering building the police cowered behind their cruisers till Cho Seung-Hui finished off the last batch of his 32 victims, then killed himself. Then the police bravely rushed in, started sticking their guns in the faces of the traumatized students, screaming at them to freeze or be shot. Similar timidity was on display in Columbine....

..............

The Virginia Tech terrible massacre should prompt a radical review of the utility of SWAT teams which now infest almost every community in America. Each time there's a hostage taking or a mass murderer on the rampage, one sees the same familiar sight: overweight SWAT men, doubled up under the weight of their costly artillery, lumbering along in their body armor and then hiding behind trees or cars or walls while the killer goes about his business. SWAT teams perform most efficiently when shooting down unarmed street people menacing them with cellphones.

The answer is to disband SWAT teams and kindred military units, and return to the idea of voluntary posses or militias: a speedy assembly of citizen volunteers with their own weapons. Such a body at Columbine or Virginia Tech might have saved many lifes. In other words: make the Second Amendment live up to its promise.

........

The left complain about SWAT teams, but doesn't see that the progressives bear a lot of responsibility for their rise. If you confer the task of social invigilation and protection to professional janissaries--cops -- and deny the right of self and social protection to ordinary citizens, you end up with crews of over-armed thugs running amok under official license, terrorizing the disarmed citizens.

For the full, awful story of what SWAT teams have meant to U.S. justice, consult the expert: our own Radley Balko and his authoritative study .

Comments

joe | April 23, 2007, 11:58am | #

"When the mass murder session began in the engineering building the police cowered behind their cruisers till Cho Seung-Hui finished off the last batch of his 32 victims, then killed himself."

Any evidence of this? At all?

Because that's not what the survivors in the building reported.

Abdul | April 23, 2007, 12:04pm | #

In Beslan, many of the students' parents showed up with personal firearms. This basically interfered with the Russians handling of the situation, made it hard for the police to tell well-meaning civilian from escaping terrorist, and increased the chances of friendly fire. I guess that's par for the course in Russia, where the only thing worse than being taken hostage by Chechens is being rescued by Russians.

Still, while SWAT teams are the wrong toolf or serving your average search warrant, they are the right tool for going after spree-killers and hostage takers. It's not amateur hour.

Guy Montag | April 23, 2007, 12:05pm | #

I love the quoted portion of the article. Why? Because I love it when Leftists agree with G. Gordon Liddy.

It does ring a little inaccurate about the VT response. I thought the cops rushed in and the students said same. Seeing a bunch of 'extra' cops covering doorways from behind trees is not a bad thing.

Columbine, watching the SWAT team hide behind emergency equipment was just so wrong on so many levels. Not the least being that you shouldn't make the ambulance a target by hiding behind it.

Warty | April 23, 2007, 12:10pm | #

Guy, don't forget that an automobile does an awful job of stopping bullets. One might expect a SWAT team to know that.

Thomas | April 23, 2007, 12:12pm | #

I think that the response here should be similar to that of my one friend after 9/11, buy a shotgun and join the NRA, learn a thing or two, and then if you are ever in a given situation you may be prepared to deal with it, or be shot down because you don't have SWAT written accross your back

bartman | April 23, 2007, 12:34pm | #

Ah, that old Appalachian School of Law canard.

The shooter ran out of ammo and was restrained by unarmed civilians before the gun-toters showed up.

I support gun ownership on a philosophoical and constitutional basis, not because of some apochryphal consequentialist anecdote.

Legate Damar | April 23, 2007, 12:37pm | #

Put me down for "methinks AC goes just a bit too far." While we should be disbanding many SWAT teams across the country, we shouldn't be disbanding them all. I'd imagine that some places (LA in particular comes to mind) have legitimate reasons to have a SWAT around team just in case.

Dayton? Not so much.

Bhh | April 23, 2007, 12:39pm | #

Dude read my mind. First thing I thought of when I heard that someone shot 30 odd people with a handgun was "where's the cops?" Then I pictured a bunch of doughy, wheezy fatsos in black SWAT gear cowering behind toddlers and old ladies in wheelchairs. So they did attempt to do something while it was still in progress? Color me surprised.

(I've been pretty much in a self-imposed media blackout re this story).

Tbone | April 23, 2007, 12:44pm | #

Fewer SWAT teams, more Harry Callahans. He only shot the good guy on the practice range.

MP | April 23, 2007, 12:45pm | #

Ah, that old Appalachian School of Law canard.

The shooter ran out of ammo and was restrained by unarmed civilians before the gun-toters showed up.

What evidence do you have that contradicts this summary?

highnumber | April 23, 2007, 12:48pm | #

Great example of the effective use of SWAT:

aquí

Cracker's Boy | April 23, 2007, 12:54pm | #

BHH - never one to agree with Joe, but while trying to find something online to dispute what he said, all I was able to locate was information that indicates that the police, in fact, DID enter the building while the shootings were in progress.


http://www.wlns.com/Global/story.asp?S=6379766

"Then two hours later at Norris Hall, there was another shooting that left 31 more people dead. Police say, when they arrived at Norris, they found at least two of the doors chained shut, and in a matter of minutes, officers broke through the barricade, that's when they heard more gun shots ringing out.

Charles Steger, Virginia Tech President: "They followed the succession of gunshots to the second floor. Just as officers reached the second floor, the gunshots stopped. The officers discovered the gunman who had taken his own life." "



DAMMIT! Joe's right. Oh well. Back under my bridge.

CB

bartman | April 23, 2007, 12:55pm | #

MP:

Taking Mary Rosh Lott's masturbatory fabrications at face value will leave looking like a fool every time.

And even he doesn't try to claim that the shooter's gun was not empty when he was restrained, so an armed populace did not mythically save the day.

Brandybuck | April 23, 2007, 12:56pm | #

"What evidence do you have that contradicts this summary?"

Don't you know? If you repeat a lie long enough the left will believe it. Expect this lie is going to be repeated often in the coming weeks and months.

joe | April 23, 2007, 1:01pm | #

From MP's link:

"Dr. Lott is a renowned statistician who has done extensive research proving irrevocably the false and fraudulent "evidence" consistently churned up and mass produced by the media for public consumption."

Uhhh...Let's put this one in the "maybe" pile.

I. Self. Divine. | April 23, 2007, 1:09pm | #

hehe...cockburn...*chortles*

R.Totale | April 23, 2007, 1:19pm | #

hehe...cockburn...*chortles*

That's not funny. My brother died that way.

MP | April 23, 2007, 1:24pm | #

And even he doesn't try to claim that the shooter's gun was not empty when he was restrained, so an armed populace did not mythically save the day.

If you want to refute the link, and claim your own version of events, then please, do. But back it up.

Uhhh...Let's put this one in the "maybe" pile.

True 'nuff. But Lang's rhetoric regarding Lott aside, when people like bartman make brash, dismissive statements, they'd better have the ability to back 'em up.

Tim Lambert | April 23, 2007, 1:25pm | #

What evidence contradicts your summary? Bob Somerby nails it.

VM | April 23, 2007, 1:26pm | #

"Taking Mary Rosh Lott's masturbatory fabrications at face value will leave looking like a fool every time."

that's a function of MRL and not of BATIN.

(jest settin the record straight. k?)

Les | April 23, 2007, 1:30pm | #

Don't you know? If you repeat a lie long enough the left will believe it.

It's a good thing this isn't true for the right.

henry | April 23, 2007, 1:31pm | #

The Left and guns is a funny story--I mean, am I the only one who remembers the Abraham Lincoln Brigade? And the chic Che--what did he tote to work everyday, a box of fucking donuts?

And if I thought BushCo=Hitler, or, in milder form, they were a bunch of cryptofascists eagerly awaiting the next "terrorist" "attack' so they could work for the clampdown even more, I'd be buying lots o' guns myself. Yet, bizarrely enough, the Left in this country is the Amen Corner of the gun grabbers. I bet they dream of riding in cattle cars, too.

John | April 23, 2007, 1:36pm | #

I wonder what the typical lefty anti gun person would think about blacks arming themselves against the KKK in the Jim Crow south? It happened more than a few times and saved a lot of innocent lives from lynching and the like. But of course those black people were supposed to wait for the police and were actually placing themselves in more danger by owning those guns than they were by being unarmed.

LarryA | April 23, 2007, 1:37pm | #

The reference to Columbine is somewhat misplaced, as that incident changed SWAT team thinking and tactics. We see that here, where the first SWAT entry was ASAP, with other officers waiting outside.

Still, while SWAT teams are the wrong tool for serving your average search warrant, they are the right tool for going after spree-killers and hostage takers. It's not amateur hour.

But the key term here is "going after." A shooting spree like this one takes very few minutes. By the time a SWAT team assembles and gears up a lot of folks are already dead or wounded. A concealed handgun licensee's role is not to enter the building and confront bad guys, it's to respond immediately when personally attacked.

Notice person walking down hall shooting innocent people. Draw handgun, attain sight picture on center of mass. Pull trigger until person quits shooting innocent people. Call 911. This is exactly amateur hour, and it doesn't require the extensive training a dynamic entry does.

If you are injured, and the only person on site only has Red Cross First Aid training, are you going to say, "This isn't amateur hour so wait for a physician?"

I find it ironic that college administrators will budget millions for armed campus police forces, including automatic weapons and tactical response teams, and expect them to be highly trained to respond to these situations. Then they turn around and call students with concealed handgun licenses paranoid for wanting to carry, because multiple murders are too rare to worry about.

joe | April 23, 2007, 1:46pm | #

John,

I imagine it would give them pause. At least, some segment of that population would find such an argument compelling.

But here's my beef - why are we speculating about this? Why - outside of the libertarianosphere - does that argument never get made?

I learned on a recent thread that U.S. Grant and William T. Sherman were early NRA presidents, because of their commitment to supporting newly freed slaves as they struggled against the powers that be in the South. Did you know that? Even among gun nuts, how many people know that?

Why isn't this being shouted from the rooftops? Why doesn't the NRA use this as its lead argument, particularly in blue states, when arguing about how an armed populace is a defense against tyranny?

P Brooks | April 23, 2007, 1:47pm | #

"The left complain about SWAT teams, but doesn't see that the progressives bear a lot of responsibility for their rise. If you confer the task of social invigilation and protection to professional janissaries--cops -- and deny the right of self and social protection to ordinary citizens, you end up with crews of over-armed thugs running amok under official license, terrorizing the disarmed citizens."

This somewhat convoluted statement coincides with my theory of "expert-ism." The big-government types have for decades carried on a campaign to convince ordinary citizens that they must not act on their own initiative, but wait for trained experts to come and save them. Some of the commenters on this thread appear to believe this.
I stumbled across a thread on the Mother Jones blog yesterday in which many outraged lefties were steaming about comments in the blogoshpere wondering why the victims were not more aggressive, or successful, in stopping Cho. It's awfully easy to throw out there, but if you're already (as good as) dead, why not go on offense?

Zoomie Junior | April 23, 2007, 2:04pm | #

Just dopped in to say this is one of the best H&R headlines I've seen recently. Brilliant use of an old meme, Brian.

OBEY

Kap | April 23, 2007, 2:06pm | #

Joe, many gun nuts know that. The NRA doesn't trumpet it because I suspect "we were founded to arm black men" doesn't go over to well politically nowadays.

I stumbled across a thread on the Mother Jones blog yesterday in which many outraged lefties were steaming about comments in the blogoshpere wondering why the victims were not more aggressive, or successful, in stopping Cho. It's awfully easy to throw out there, but if you're already (as good as) dead, why not go on offense?

I have been thinking this since day 2 or so. Cho's 2 guns were a .22 and a 9mm. The latter is barely up to the task of killing a human, and the former barely up to the task of killing a squirrel. Seriously; most people grossly overestimate the deadliness of a gun. An these, wielded by someone who bought them a month prior. He had neither the tools or the skills to be so successful. It doesn't add up. 50 hits? 2/3 of those instant kills? WTF? I am assuming some of my fellow gun nuts are wondering this as well.

I think a great number of his victims simply froze, allowing him to walk up and shoot them in the head, execution style.

This tells us more about human nature than studying Cho ever will; this is the real problem.

We spent so much time infantilizing those students with in loco parentis we forgot to remind them they were adults, capable of fighting back.

joe | April 23, 2007, 2:09pm | #

Kap,

"Joe, many gun nuts know that. The NRA doesn't trumpet it because I suspect "we were founded to arm black men" doesn't go over to well politically nowadays."

Go over well among whom?

And it wasn't 50 hits, more like 150. Ever person brought to the hospital, the doctors reported, had multiple gunshot wounds, in a variety of locations.

bartman | April 23, 2007, 2:10pm | #

Tim: thanks.

MP: I graciously accept your apology in advance. My only advice is that maybe you should learn to be a little more skeptical of known charlatans like Lott.

Lott is to gun rights what Joe McCarthy was to anti-communism: a really, really bad spokesman for an intrinsically good cause.

Mad Max | April 23, 2007, 2:12pm | #

Here's a tangent: Why is it "execution style" to shoot someone in the head? I suppose executioners do that in China - where else?

Wouldn't "execution style" in the US involve injecting lethal chemicals into the victim?

Kap | April 23, 2007, 2:17pm | #

Go over well among whom?

Among what the NRA assumes to be its membership: the Jeff Foxworthy crowd. And also among the portion of anti-gun white liberals for whom gun-control is a form of under-the-carpet racism (I am not accusing you of this).

Asharak | April 23, 2007, 2:21pm | #

The Left and guns is a funny story--I mean, am I the only one who remembers the Abraham Lincoln Brigade? And the chic Che--what did he tote to work everyday, a box of fucking donuts?

And if I thought BushCo=Hitler, or, in milder form, they were a bunch of cryptofascists eagerly awaiting the next "terrorist" "attack' so they could work for the clampdown even more, I'd be buying lots o' guns myself. Yet, bizarrely enough, the Left in this country is the Amen Corner of the gun grabbers. I bet they dream of riding in cattle cars, too.

Good points. The interesting thing is that many on the (American) Left--particularly the Black Panthers--used to have a completely different view about guns. I wonder what changed?

On the other hand, I disagree with the finger-pointing over the Virginia Tech shootings from both sides of the gun debate (I think the recent Friday Funnies cartoon nailed it).

John | April 23, 2007, 2:27pm | #

Joe,

The NRA should. Moreover, they ought to be trumpeting people in the inner cities' right to arm themselves. The fact is that the police can't protect the innocent in many big cities in this country and it is minorities who suffer the most from it.

Kap,

People do over estimate the deadliness of guns and how hard it is to actually hit someone with them. I gaurentee you that Cho would have had a hell of a time hitting someone if they were running around in the class room dodging behind desks and the like. It is just hard as hell to hit a moving target. Moreover if just one person would have jumped for his gun and someone else backed him up, he would have played hell getting a shot off and everyone else could have run to safety. It is a real shame that the mob didn't grab that little bastard and beat him to death before he did all that damage.

joe | April 23, 2007, 2:36pm | #

John,

Why do you think they don't?

Abdul | April 23, 2007, 2:39pm | #

Larry A,

I think you misunderstood my point. If you have a gun and you're at ground zero for a spree killer, then yes, you should defend yourself. And I agree that people should be able to carry concealed in most places.

But if there's a spree killer situation down the street, you shouldn't take your own gun down there as some sort of ad hoc posse. You'll most likely make the situation worse. That's a job for the professionals.

Guy Montag | April 23, 2007, 2:40pm | #

Good points. The interesting thing is that many on the (American) Left--particularly the Black Panthers--used to have a completely different view about guns. I wonder what changed?

Nothing changed. You were not under the impression that they wante just anybody to have guns, did you?

Will Allen | April 23, 2007, 2:42pm | #

Yes, the victims in Blacksburg would have been better served by rushing their attacker; it is hard not to be better served by an altenative course of action when the chosen course left one dead. However, people underestimate how difficult it is to get people to attack in the direction of a firing weapon, especially when they are surprised. Even in the military, with the exception (sometimes) of superbly trained units, people will quite often not take the correct course of action when ambushed, which is to attack in the direction of the firing weapons, and that is when the ambushed have weapons with which to return fire. It is a bit naive to expect unarmed college students, without training in the application and response to armed violence, on what appears to be, until all hell breaks loose, an uneventful Monday morning, to respond like exceptionally well trained military personnel.

John | April 23, 2007, 2:54pm | #

Joe,

Because they are a predominately rural and white organization and they like every other group speak to the needs of their members. Since their members don't live in inner cities and are not black, they don't advance that agenda. Although, the NRA is certainly not racist in the causes it chooses to champion. It is not like it goes out of its way to disarm black people or opposes ending gun control in inner city areas. Perhaps if more black people and more left wingers would join the NRA, it would change its approach. But it is kind of a chicken and egg situation.

Hooked on Innuendo | April 23, 2007, 2:59pm | #

The answer is to disband SWAT teams and kindred military units, and return to the idea of voluntary posses or militias: a speedy assembly of citizen volunteers with their own weapons. Such a body at Columbine or Virginia Tech might have saved many lifes. In other words: make the Second Amendment live up to its promise.

Uh, since it's legal to own firearms in Virginia, why didn't this happen?

Damn if this isn't the dumbest thing I've read here in a while. Professionally trained SWAT teams are no good, but a mob of yokels with shotguns would have swiftly organized and secured the campus. Right.

Will Allen | April 23, 2007, 3:10pm | #

HOI, one well trained professor with a shotgun might well have secured the building. Certainly the professor he took it upon himself to run towards the sound of a firing weapon, from one floor up, and was shot dead, would have had a much better chance to limit the death toll if he had be so armed.

MP | April 23, 2007, 3:10pm | #

I graciously accept your apology in advance. My only advice is that maybe you should learn to be a little more skeptical of known charlatans like Lott.

A) There is nothing in Tim's link that shows that the Bridges and Gross story of the events is false.

B) I have said nothing that necessitates an apology.

Lott's summary of his interviews related to the event can be found here.

The truth may never be known.

Terry | April 23, 2007, 3:43pm | #

Libertarian militia here.
P-229 .40 caliber sig saur a fine handgun though a bit pricey.
One man or woman, if in possession on April 16 at Ness Hall would've stopped it.
Ban SWAT, empower, trust the people. Huuu.

R C Dean | April 23, 2007, 3:43pm | #

Uh, since it's legal to own firearms in Virginia, why didn't this happen?

Because this incident happened in the middle of a large no-gun zone.

Professionally trained SWAT teams are no good, but a mob of yokels with shotguns would have swiftly organized and secured the campus. Right.

Well, pretty much that happened a few miles down the road in that Appalachian Law School incident.

And you should read up on University of Texas sniper. This being Texas, there was a great deal of suppressive fire aimed his way, pinning him down and saving lives, while two cops (not a SWAT team) ran up the tower and gunned him down.

So, yeah, when students and regular police take rapid action themselves, lives are saved. When everyone runs for cover waiting for SWAT, people die.

Based on our experience, that is.

John | April 23, 2007, 3:48pm | #

Actually, RC, one of those "cops" who went up and got Whitman was a deputized civilian.

The day I see a SWAT doing anything but sriching behind some cover waiting to clean up the mess after the guy finaly runs out of ammo or kills himself during one of these mass shootings, I might buy what HOI is selling. The only times one of these types of situations has not ended really badly has been when one of the potential victims was armed and did something. The cops, even if they do get there in time, never seem to have the balls or the inclination to actually do something to stop the shooter.

Hooked on Innuendo | April 23, 2007, 3:55pm | #

Maybe we should get rid of the Fire Department, too, under the assumption that if a building starts to burn a bunch of upstanding citizens will produce buckets of water to toss on the flames.

John | April 23, 2007, 3:58pm | #

Would you ban fire extinguishers HOI? I would hazard to guess that more fires are put out by amateurs on the scene with an extiningiusher than are put out by fire departments. why not have both?

MP | April 23, 2007, 3:59pm | #

Maybe we should get rid of the Fire Department, too, under the assumption that if a building starts to burn a bunch of upstanding citizens will produce buckets of water to toss on the flames.

SWAT != (does not equal) Police.

Maybe you were referring to FART? You know, the Fire and Arson Response Team.

mediageek | April 23, 2007, 4:20pm | #

"Maybe we should get rid of the Fire Department, too, under the assumption that if a building starts to burn a bunch of upstanding citizens will produce buckets of water to toss on the flames."

You mean, like, say...stay with me here...a "volunteer fire department?"

Why, it's so crazy, it might just work!

Jennifer | April 23, 2007, 4:23pm | #

Would you ban fire extinguishers HOI? I would hazard to guess that more fires are put out by amateurs on the scene with an extiningiusher than are put out by fire departments.

Hey, nothing wrong with banning fire extinguishers so long as you first pass a law mandating a "fire free zone." That'll keep everybody nice and safe, and people like HOI won't have to cower under their beds for fear of being attacked by some meanie wielding a fire extinguisher.

Tbone | April 23, 2007, 7:08pm | #

Interesting analogy - fire versus gun-toting lunatic. Both are easily extinguished in their earliest stages by someone trained and equipped with the proper tools. After reaching the conflagration stage however, the arrival of "professionals" has limited effect on the overall damage done.

Where the analogy breaks down however is when a room full of concealed carry permittees brandish their weapons in response to the first gunshot, they might some confusion as to who to shoot first, then second, . . . as opposed to confusing which trash can is on fire.

Dave | April 23, 2007, 7:43pm | #

There is another case of a school shooting stopped by an armed citizen: Pearl, Mississippi in 1997. The assistant principal ran to his car and grabbed his .45 to stop the shooter.

Unfortunately, since it was another gun-free zone, he had to run 1/4 mile to get his gun, even though he had a carry permit.

To the comment about "how did this happen in Virginia?", last year there was a student disciplined for carrying in school with a valid permit; and some students tried to get the state legislature to allow permit holders to carry on college campuses. Unfortunately, this measure was shot down, and ironically, it was a spokesman from Virginia Tech who made the statement that "...this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658

Boats | April 23, 2007, 7:48pm | #

Yeah, like where voluminous smoke is coming from is never confusing.

crimethink | April 23, 2007, 8:02pm | #

joe,

Who sued Mayor Nagin and his goons for confiscating the guns of mainly black, law-abiding citizens in New Orleans?

Hint: It wasn't the NAACP.

Guy Montag | April 23, 2007, 8:06pm | #

Hey you goofballs, where is the gun pr0n? I gave it up before (see older articles) now it is your turn.

LarryA | April 23, 2007, 11:56pm | #

Why isn't this being shouted from the rooftops? Why doesn't the NRA use this as its lead argument, particularly in blue states, when arguing about how an armed populace is a defense against tyranny?

Actually, I have read quite a few research papers on the racist origins of many gun control laws. They are regularly referenced in pro-gun periodicals. Funny how the mainstream media doesn’t pick them up.

For a really good “armed populace is a defense against tyranny” check out the Deacons for Defense and Justice. Start at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice

Not that the NRA gets no coverage. I've seen several MSM articles about the NRA's female-oriented programs. Usually under a "Luring Innocent Women To Their Doom" headline.

Abdoul, sorry, I didn’t read your post that way the first time. Let’s say we both made good points. BTW, regarding the Beslan situation, I also read that the Russian troops quickly ran out of ammo (they weren't carrying much), and were surreptitiously resupplied by the civilians.

It is a bit naive to expect unarmed college students, without training in the application and response to armed violence, on what appears to be, until all hell breaks loose, an uneventful Monday morning, to respond like exceptionally well trained military personnel.

Particularly when the idea that they are completely safe in a “gun-free zone” is so consistently reinforced.

Since their (NRA) members don't live in inner cities and are not black, they don't advance that agenda.

Actually, the NRA has been quite vocal on issues like protesting the prohibition of firearms in inner city housing developments. Unlike Democrats, who lobby for the laws. And, as noted above, New Orleans.

joe | April 24, 2007, 10:13am | #

crimethink,

Exactly! There's another case. That was a goldmine of potential positive publicity for the NRA among moderate and liberal Americans - look at us, we're standing up for the poor, black citizens of an urban area - but once again, they left it lying on the table.

Like the VFW and Boy Scouts, the NRA has decided to man the barricades of Pat Buchanan's culture war, and given up on decades of history as a nonpartisan organization with appeal across the political spectrum.

I blame Rove and Norquist.

Larry A,

Research papers? Gun magazines?

"Funny how the mainstream media doesn’t pick them up." Are you under the impression that powerful and well-funded political organizations with gigantic political action and media branches sit around and wait for "the mainstream media" to "pick them up?" Because a cursory review of how lobbying groups like the NRA actually operate would disabuse you of that notion.

"Actually, the NRA has been quite vocal on issues like protesting the prohibition of firearms in inner city housing developments." I'm pretty g-d politically aware. I make a habit of checking out what activists I disagree with do. I've been reading Reason Online on a daily basis for years.

And this is the first time I've ever heard of this "quite vocal" campaign you speak of. What does that tell you?

Seamus | April 24, 2007, 10:33am | #

And this is the first time I've ever heard of this "quite vocal" campaign you speak of. What does that tell you?

That you don't read NRA publications, except as filtered through the MSM?

Isaac Bartram | April 24, 2007, 11:17am | #

joe

All a candidate has to do to get an endorsement from the NRA is to satisfactorily answer the NRA candidate questionaire and have a pro gun rights voting record. Oh and to be a donkey or an elephant and hence having a chance. Otherwise the LP candidates would get the NRA nod in every race they ran in.

The NRA does not care about a candidates position on Social Security, gay marriage or abortion. It cares only about gun rights.

Anyone who reads American Hunter will find out that a lot of NRA members and leaders have a significant problem with the Bush Administration's conservation and environmental record.

Isaac Bartram | April 24, 2007, 11:24am | #

I've seen several MSM articles about the NRA's female-oriented programs. Usually under a "Luring Innocent Women To Their Doom" headline.

That's pretty much how the MSM has treated the NRA's protests of the prohibition of firearms in inner city housing developments.

The headlines usually read "NRA Wants More Black People Murdered" or some variation thereof.

TV and film dramas can be relied upon to show any armed person except for an agent of the state coming to a bad end either as an innocent deluded victim or as an evil violent agressor.

joe | April 24, 2007, 11:45am | #

Seamus,

"That you don't read NRA publications, except as filtered through the MSM?"

Reason is the MSM? Anyway, if the Democrats are really lucky, you will run the next Republican presidential campaign. Waaah, the MSM isn't coming to me and asking about this issue I want to publicize! If only there was some method by which political campaigns were able to get out a message other than waiting for major media outlets to do so on their own!

Isaac Bertram,

Any time you'd care to reply to my point, you let me know. In case it isn't clear, my point is about the NRA's efforts, or lack thereof, to reach out beyond its white, rural, conservative, Republican base.

LarryA | April 24, 2007, 12:22pm | #

"Funny how the mainstream media doesn’t pick them up." Are you under the impression that powerful and well-funded political organizations with gigantic political action and media branches sit around and wait for "the mainstream media" to "pick them up?" Because a cursory review of how lobbying groups like the NRA actually operate would disabuse you of that notion.

I'm saying that if the Brady organization issues a press release the mainstream media editor prints the release, then assigns a reporter to do a backup story, then most likely features an editorial echoing the information.

If the NRA issues a press release the same editor checks to see if he can think up a reverse angle, and if not shitcans it.

Example in point: The National Shooting Matches.

Thousands of competitors vie for hundreds of spots in several events. I know for certain that the PR folks send out releases, as I know some of the people involved. They also do follow-up releases about "Ms. Smith from your town won an event." Local interest.

Result: Nada.

Last year it was the 100th National Match at Camp Perry, Ohio, which should have added to the newsworthiness. The year before the National Matches took place as the Assault Rifle Ban was expiring, and most of the matches are fired using "assault rifles." Surely that would be newsworthy.

Result: Nada.

This from a news system that annually covers the Iditarod Alaskan dogsled race.

"Actually, the NRA has been quite vocal on issues like protesting the prohibition of firearms in inner city housing developments." I'm pretty g-d politically aware. I make a habit of checking out what activists I disagree with do. I've been reading Reason Online on a daily basis for years. And this is the first time I've ever heard of this "quite vocal" campaign you speak of. What does that tell you?

It was mid 1990s, a little early for RO. You heard about it, though. The MSM story was about how valiant mayors, governors, and HUD officials were improving the safety of crime-ridden housing developments by banning firearms for the children. Buried therein was a graph saying that the nasssty NRA opposed the bans.

Down here in Texas you would also have read a story about how our valiant Legislators overturned bans in San Antonio, Dallas, Austin and Houston. (State preemption.) The stories didn't mention the lobbying done by the Texas State Rifle Association (NRA affiliate) to prod the action. Some of the editorials written to support the ban did mention that the eeevul NRA backed its being voided.

Another example, in 2000. http://texnews.com/guns.texnews/news/ads0510.html NRA counters mom march with new ads. How much news coverage did the MMM get relative to the ads?

TV and film dramas can be relied upon to show any armed person except for an agent of the state coming to a bad end either as an innocent deluded victim or as an evil violent aggressor.

Exception: Action movie stars. Laura Croft, et al.

mediageek | April 24, 2007, 12:38pm | #

So, joe's point boils down to "The NRA must be racist, because I never hear the MSM report about their attempts to reach out to minorities."

But then he says that the NRA shouldn't expect to have their point of view given time and/or space in nooze outlets because they are a partisan organization?

uhhh...

Isaac Bartram | April 24, 2007, 2:12pm | #

Any time you'd care to reply to my point, you let me know. In case it isn't clear, my point is about the NRA's efforts, or lack thereof, to reach out beyond its white, rural, conservative, Republican base.

joe

LarryA has said everything I could say at 12:22pm.

anonymous coward | April 24, 2007, 7:57pm | #

What evidence contradicts your summary? Bob Somerby nails it.

Wow. Tim Lambert citing a source that cites...

...Tim Lambert!

Seamus | April 25, 2007, 2:26pm | #

Seamus,

"That you don't read NRA publications, except as filtered through the MSM?"

Reason is the MSM?

So the fact that you learned about this NRA program from Reason and not from the MSM media disproves my point how?